Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Labor Peace Agreements And Gov. Patterson

New York Governor's New Order To Benefit Unions is an important May 3, 2009 New York Times article. It reports on an Executive Order issued by the Governor which may make it easier to organize unions in New York. It requires that certain companies that have state to have labor peace agreements. As the article states:

The directive, which was signed on April 24 and issued on Friday, will require the operators of projects that receive assistance like loans, tax breaks or property leases from state agencies or public authorities to obtain “labor peace” agreements with unions seeking to organize their workers.

Under the agreements, workers would pledge not to strike, boycott or engage in other actions that would disrupt business or deprive the state of revenues.

The directive will give unions unprecedented leverage to demand right-to-organize provisions — including “card-check” rights that allow a union to be recognized as soon as a majority of workers sign authorization cards — for the roughly 2,000 workers expected to be hired at various facilities around the state once they are completed.

Administration officials said the order would benefit taxpayers by preventing interruptions to the revenue from projects built with state assistance.

Reportedly, this is the first time a Governor has required such agreements. Query whether those contracts are preempted by the NLRA??



Mitchell H. Rubinstein

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/2009/05/labor-peace-agreements-and-gov-patterson-.html

Interesting Cases, Law Review Ideas, New York Law, Unions | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0115706c890a970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Labor Peace Agreements And Gov. Patterson :

Comments

If the California statute prohibiting the use of state funds to oppose (or support) unionization is preempted, how could this not be?

Posted by: King Tower | May 29, 2009 6:47:58 PM

Post a comment